Qualifications for the position have not changed: Applicants must have a relevant master's degree (social work, counseling, education, psychology, etc.) and at least five years experience. The top of salary range, however, has increased significantly. According to the posting, the position will pay $60,864 to $143,864 (it was previously $105,000). The search will continue until filled. (CSUCI Careers; via HigherEdJobs.)
Updated 2/15/19: A CSUCI representative clarified the salary range for the position.
Prior: Job Posting.
So basically they want to prevent people faced with an untenable #metoo situation from having a confidential place so sort through their options. If only the university understood that ironically, more people come forward with sexual harassment concerns because they first had a confidential, off the record conversation with ombuds. And while this salary range is appropriate, money doesn’t mean we violate our core professional ethics.
ReplyDeleteCal State is not the only university to make this decision. I don't think the motivation is to prevent anyone from having a confidential resource. It's just that the attorneys don't think they can defend the ombuds. This is a minority position in higher ed but not an intentional attack on IOA standards.
DeleteThe attorneys' concern is not unreasonable. But it would be nice if a test case got pushed through the courts so everybody knew what to do.
ReplyDeleteThe University of the Pacific, where I "ombuds", has the same policy, and yes
ReplyDelete, it's because general council is concerned about the risk involved. I do agree that more people come forward when there is a confidential resource. I am still fighting that battle here, and am hoping to change my status as a mandated reporter by next fiscal year.
The job posting states: "The person holding this position is considered a 'mandated reporter' under the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act and is required to comply with the requirements set forth in CSU Executive Order 1083 (Revised July 21, 2017) as a condition of employment." Is that not different from "responsible employee" in that it is stating that only sexual harassment toward a child under 18 years of age should be reported and not any other constituent who is older than 18 years of age, faculty, staff, or administrator? Please clarify thank you!
ReplyDeleteI think those are two different categories of mandated reporting. There will be some overlap if student under 18 is being sexually abused. I was trying to point out that the position is a "responsible employee" for Title IX in addition to being a mandated reporter of child abuse (as are all California ombuds working in an educational institution).
DeleteAlso: being a mandated Title IX reporter isn't mentioned in the job posting and I thought this was significant for potential applicants.
ReplyDelete